The SBC at the Intersection of Intersectionality

There has been much to talk about in recent weeks in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The problem is, we need to talk more. I write this article as a lifelong SBC member and pastor. I’m a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I have no agenda to stir-up trouble in the SBC. However, there is trouble, and that’s why I write as a concerned pastor.

As the annual meeting in June approaches, the pace of the political structure intensifies as usual, but this year, with a new president to be elected and other factors at hand (such as moral failures of leading professors)—the pace has drastically increased to say the least. Albert Mohler has written a piece suggesting that the wrath of God has been poured out on the SBC. Sam Rainer has used the language of a “dumpster fire” in an article he published about the recent problems within the Convention.

Make no mistake about it, there are major fires in the SBC that need immediate attention. A great deal of attention is centered on the issues of immorality (SBC version of #MeToo) among leaders in the SBC and SBC entities. Certainly the SBC could benefit from a greater humility, so perhaps God is using such situations to bring Southern Baptists to a point of repentance. A few years ago the talk of the SBC was about church planting, but today the talk is centered on social justice, racial inequality, and the empowerment of women. One issue that must be addressed in the SBC today is the issue of political intersectionality. Make no mistake about it—if left unchallenged the SBC will see massive decline and a complete capitulation on matters of complementarianism.

What is Intersectionality?

Intersectionality was originally coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a political activist and radical feminist, in order to describe oppression against women on specific different points of intersection. Today, it’s used in a more broad sense. In short, intersectionality as it has been defined, is discrimination based on overlapping layers of individual classes of discrimination. It’s when a person is subjected to discrimination for more than one classification such as a woman who is black and lesbian. She would classify, under this line of reasoning for three basic discriminatory marks—being a woman, who is black, and is also a lesbian. According to the definition of intersectionality, where these three marks “intersect” is the focus of her greatest and most severe discrimination which places her at the greatest risk of oppression in our culture.

Although this term was birthed out of a radical feminist political culture, it’s now being used within evangelical circles to describe people who are oppressed and “held back” from certain advancement within evangelicalism. Today, conferences are being held, articles are being written, and people are talking quite frequently about social justice and intersectionality as it pertains to ethnic diversity and women empowerment.

How Will Intersectionality Politics Change the SBC?

As this agenda continues to play itself out, the outcome has yet to be determined. Will the SBC split during this new era? Many people are predicting a split and splintering of the current denominational structures across evangelicalism. Some are suggesting that as this agenda continues to work its way through the SBC and other groups like the PCA, that we will see a fracture happen at some point in the near future.

While we must pray that it doesn’t happen, we must speak up and point out the dangers of ideologies such as intersectionality. God has created both male and female in his image and we as image-bearers of God have a specific purpose in God’s redemptive plan. This goes not only for men and women, but for all ethnicities. However, the ideologies of intersectionality do not run down the tracks of the gospel of Jesus Christ and they certainly don’t lead to the same end goal. How will intersectionality change evangelicalism?

Deconstructionism

Intersectionality, like many ideas, was not created in a vacuum. They are birthed from parent ideologies that create spin-off ideas and movements. Intersectionality was birthed from a Neo-Marxist view that seeks to tear down hierarchies and create new power structures that help the minorities achieve equality. This approach seeks to divide everyone in a specific population into race, class, and gender segments and place a great spotlight on the minority groups among that population. Then, by organizing an effort to “help” the minorities achieve equality, this movement works to create a great deal of sympathy, money, and support for those oppressed individuals.

The result of such a politically charged and emotionally driven movement is power and influence. In essence, it places the leaders of the pack in the captain’s chair. However, we must be clear, the ethnic division is never solved. This is an age-old model that does not work. It continues to keep the ethnicities divided while empowering people to solve the problems. In short, American politics pumped billions of dollars into the civil rights movement era up to our present day in attempt to solve such problems. While it created many jobs, gave people positions and titles, it never really solved the division between ethnic groups. Why did it fail? It failed because you can’t solve human depravity outside of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Today, the same ideas are being used to address the need to empower women and provide them with equality within evangelical circles such as the SBC. This same language was directed at racial inequality and injustice at the recent MLK50 conference as well resulting in a call for repentance for the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., as Thabiti Anyabwile articulated in his article:

My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice.

One must ask an honest question about this social justice war—is this movement the right way forward or will it lead to greater division? Will this movement deconstruct the SBC and other hierarchies in evangelicalism without harming local churches in the process? Does this whole social justice war empower women and minority ethnicities in our culture or does it patronize them?

Complementarianism

When we think of how women are used in the household of faith—we certainly see the value of faithful discipleship among the women who train the younger women and children (Titus 2:1-10). For nearly two millennia the Church understood their roles and responsibilities in regard to women teaching and exercising authority over men, and it wasn’t until the militant feminist movement of the 1960s that caused people to seriously question the boundaries of God—even among conservative evangelical circles.

Paul never held women back in his day, instead, he was helping them forward by pointing out their intended roles in God’s creation as he wrote about such roles to Timothy in his first letter to his son in the faith. As I’ve stated in a previous article on this subject, the word teach, “διδάσκω,” according to Thomas Schreiner, has in mind the public teaching and involves authoritative transmission of tradition about Christ and the Scriptures (1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11; 1Tim. 2:7; 2Tim. 3:16; James 3:1). [1] While women are permitted to discuss biblical theology in a mixed group setting such as a Sunday school class, women teaching children or other women (Titus 2), or in a private setting such as with Apollos’ instruction that was gleaned from meeting with Priscilla and Aquila—biblical teaching, when among the church as a whole or a mixed audience should be led by men. It seems clear that Paul was addressing an issue that was taking place in the life of the church and needed to be corrected.

The role distinction of women and men has been made clear from the beginning. God has one role for men and another for women—that goes for life in general and for leadership structure within the church. To rearrange God’s plan is dangerous, as we’ve seen in our American political debate surrounding the redefining of marriage. If the SBC should decide to redefine complementarianism—we can expect a massive landslide as the foundation crumbles on this issue.

Dawn M. Owens, an author, speaker, and radio show host said the following in a recent tweet:

If we are going to apply 1 Timothy 2:11-14 as our end all be all in this argument first we need to acknowledge is says “a woman” not all women. But since you are stuck in applying it that way, then you must apply it to ALL women whether in or out of church.

In the same conversation, Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas responded by quoting Dawn and then stating the following:

Interesting insights&commentary on that passage,that I’d never heard,read,or considered. Grateful that women aren’t forbidden to tweet, scripturally [emoji not included here in the quote]. Women often bring out fresh perspectives interpretively, that are exegetically accurate&profound.I regret many refuse2hear wmn.

Is this how we’ve been trained to interpret the Bible? Is this rightly handling the Word of God or is this a method of eisegesis rather than exegesis? Certainly this can’t be the fruit of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. One must not mishandle God’s Word in order to uphold the dignity and value of women.

Jen Wilkin, popular author and speaker also weighed in on the issues in a recent tweet as she said:

As go our seminaries, so go our churches. It’s past time for a full re-evaluation of existing power structures, and for the strategic implementation of formal channels of influence/input/leadership for women in the SBC.

In a recent Tweet, Russell Moore (the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC) stated the following:

There would be no Southern Baptist Convention without Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. We desperately need a resurgence of women’s voices and women’s leadership and women’s empowerment, again. It is way past time.

In that same line of thinking, J.D. Greear Tweeted out to Beth Moore regarding her article written to chart her own personal road of oppression, by stating the following:

Thank you, Beth! Hoping that we are entering a new era where we in the complementarian world take all the Word of God seriously–not just the parts about distinction of roles but also re: the tearing down of all hierarchy & his gracious distribution of gifts to all his children!

With two of the largest voices within the SBC today championing women’s empowerment and encouraging a tearing down of all hierarchy as we enter a new era, the question remains — what is this new era and what what will the result be for the SBC as we move forward as a collective group of partnering churches? Will women be invited to preach to the Convention in the days to come? Will once conservative evangelical circles redefine complementarianism and rearrange roles and boundaries for women in leadership? How will this change the SBC and perhaps other denominational structures in the broader evangelical world?

Only God knows the answer in full. While I’m not a prophet or the son of a prophet, my prediction is that the social justice agenda will keep the ethnicities divided and smash the foundation of a robust view of complementarianism. We should all work to root out racism and uphold the proper use of women’s gifts inside and outside the local church—but the social justice warrior movement is not the best way forward. A firm commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way forward.

I’m reminded of that truth every time I read the story of the demon possessed man who was living in the tombs and rejected by society. When Jesus changed his life—he was suddenly pictured as a man in his right mind and clothed (Luke 8:35). It’s the gospel—not intersectionality or any other ideology that will bring about peace, unity, and respect for the image-bearing dignity deserved by all of God’s people. The longer we continue to import language of sociology on biblical texts and employ tactics from the political sphere—we will continue to see a divided SBC and one that may never fully recover. May the Lord spare the SBC from such a disaster.

You are being witness to the falling away that Paul spoke of. This is just one more facet to the creeping hiss of the serpent that began when Constantine took the reins of the Roman Empire forming the rcc.
These people who decry the role of women being the same as a man in the church are of the same rebellious spirit that gave us the sexual revolution. They are not to be listened to nor their arguments entertained in any way by Bible believing Christians. Which are fastly becoming a minority within the structure of the organized church.
Flee the harlot!!
Maranatha!
Blessings:-}

I’m sure this does NOT sit well with the Father. The SBC is a joke; and a bad one at that. The entire “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” etc., is replete in “Christian” circles today and I find it rather nauseating. They have abandoned sound doctrine and it’s time to break ties with this outfit. What a disgrace to the church and to Christianity. Things like this drive home the point Jesus made about salt losing it’s savor.

Josh, with respect, I must totally disagree with your comments about gender roles.

You said, “For nearly two millennia the Church understood their roles and responsibilities in regard to women teaching and exercising authority over men, and it wasn’t until the militant feminist movement of the 1960s that caused people to seriously question the boundaries of God—even among conservative evangelical circles.”

For more than 2000 years, men in power have told women what they can and can’t do. Mostly it was what they can’t do. They can’t vote, they can’t receive an education, they can’t own property, they can’t stand for public office, they can’t have professional careers (eg medicine, law), etc. People claimed that these restrictions were also “the boundaries of God”.

And, dare I suggest that “for nearly two millenia”, the church understood slavery to have God’s seal of approval on it. The radicals who suggested otherwise were dismissed as liberals and heretics who would destroy the faith. (Read “The Civil War as a theological crisis” by Mark Noll). The role of the SBC in all this is well-documented.

Do you see the pattern? Those in positions of power interpret the Bible to preserve their positions of power. The truth is that we read the Bible in a particular context. When slave-owners (or their friends) studied the Bible, they concluded that slavery was OK. When male church leaders study the Bible, they conclude that women are to be excluded from church leadership.

But, actually, women’s roles in the church were questioned long before the 1960s. Read “No Time For Silence” by Janette Hassey for documented evidence of this going back 100 years earlier. So your claim that this is a product of militant feminism isn’t really true. But it shouldn’t surprise us that societal changes have prompted the church to reconsider its theology.

I don’t have time now to write an egalitarian exegesis now, but the views expressed by Köstenberger and Shreiner have been refuted time and time again. Theologians such as Philip Payne, Jon Zens, RT France, Gordon Fee, Stanley Grenz, Craig Keener, and many others have done this. Or do some basic research online – there are plenty of good articles presenting egalitarian readings of all the passages that appear to restrict women’s roles.

I have studied this topic at length, and I have concluded that the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women – in creation, in redemption, and in their roles in the church. The sooner this false teaching of complementarianism (a word invented to be a more acceptable term than patriarchy) is treated as a heresy and consigned to the trash can of history , the better. You simply will not get the sorts of abuse that Paige Patterson and many others have committed when women are not regarded as subordinate to men.

David Smith, as a woman who grew up in the SBC please let me say that I never felt subordinate to men.

I find it mildly irritating that people like yourself seem eager to speak for all of these poor oppressed women in the SBC, as though we are one big glob of victims. You paint with a very large brush.

As a child it was the women who had a major influence if not outright controlled the children’s and youth department, children’s choir, any celebration events, major outreach events like VBS, Katrina relief etc. Not the eldely deacon board, pastor or the majority of dissinterested men in the congregation.

As an adult now I have left the SBC not because of opression of women but the for the opposite reason. The SBC is leaning more liberal every year. They are watering down the Word to appease women, minorities and weak men.

I want no part in it. I want a man in the pulpit not a woman.

I believe in headship of men over women.

I want my sons to be great leaders in their homes and churches not brought up in a denomination that tells them they should be ashamed for being white, male or straight.

I see God’s plan for the church and family as healthy and right with men in the lead.

Thanks be to God there are those who still speak the truth and hold God’s Word up as the standard like this article does.

The root sin of this whole issue is discontentment. Why are these so called Christian men stirring the pot and egging these women on to rebellion? They have no spine and are joining in the rebellion.

The enemy of God knows human nature…he has been around for years! He targeted Eve first…why?

Our enemy knows human nature and prowls around God’s children. We are warned by Paul and Peter to be on guard. These men and women are not girded with the belt of truth.

Sandie Montgomery
on June 10, 2018 at 8:04 pm

Totally agree!

Kevin Brendler
on June 10, 2018 at 11:47 pm

” … as a woman who grew up in the SBC please let me say that I never felt subordinate to men.”

I think Paul would have a problem with that.

34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

It’s possible to stand near to the apostle without standing with him.

Bob Teems
on October 16, 2018 at 8:50 am

People like Dave Smith are being slowly led away from what the real goal of the Body of Christ should be, to share the gospel of the grace of God.All these side issues are subtly grabbing our attention away from spreading the gospel. That IS or should be at the top of our priority list. I for one, am ashamed that I have even been “suckered” in to these distractions. God help us to be servants to the right cause (not causes), the cause of Christ!

Kevin Brendler
on June 7, 2018 at 4:48 pm

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

(1) 1 Cor 14:35 indicates that Paul is referring to women asking questions. It’s not what you’d say if he had women preachers in mind. These verses are about women speaking out of turn and being disruptive.

(2) The previous few verses also refer to disorderly speech – speaking in tongues (v27-28) and prophecy (v29-33). It is therefore consistent with the context to treat v34-35 as also being about disorderly speech.

(3) In 1 Cor 11:5 Paul refers to women praying and prophecying. They could be praying on their own, but prophecy is always spoken to the church (see 1 Cor 14:3-4). To suggest that 1 Cor 14:34-35 prevents women from speaking is totally contradictory to what Paul wrote just three chapters earlier.

Sorry, but it is simply wrong to say that 1 Cor 14:34-35 amounts to a prohibition on women preaching.

1) The verses do *NOT* prohibit women from speaking out of turn in the assembly. The verses prohibit women from speaking *-AT ALL-* in the assembly.

Let the Holy Spirit speak:

“As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says ….”

2) Agreed. It _is_ consistent with the context to treat v.34-35 as also being about disorderly conduct in the church. Hence, a woman who speaks in the gathered assembly is, by definition, disorderly. That’s exactly what Paul is saying. If you have a woman speaking in the assembly, then by apostolic definition you have disorder in the church. Paul plainly, over and again, requires the silence of women when the church gathers. If you don’t recognize this truth, then the apostle does not recognize you (v.38).

3) Paul clearly does not begin his instructions for the assembled church until 1 Cor 11:17-18. Therefore, 1 Cor 11:5 is to be understood more broadly, inclusive of family gatherings, private meetings of fellow believers, etc. It’s impossible that women prophesied in the church meetings. Paul calls that a disgrace! He also calls it insubordination. The gift of prophecy is now ceased, besides.

“As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

Dave, come back to sanity. Come back to the world that God created. In fact, come back to the right side of history. Who do you think controls history anyway? The zeitgeist will pass away, Dave, and so will your views. And apostasy is a very dangerous place from which to meet God.

Come back to Jesus, Dave, with the rest of us repentant ones.

36 What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Dave Smith
on June 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm

Kevin, before I write a theological response to your comment, I would like to ask you two questions:

1. Do you believe that a woman should be able to give a testimony of salvation in church?

2. Do you believe that a women should be able to make a profession of faith before she gets baptised in church?

Kevin Brendler
on June 10, 2018 at 10:46 pm

… shun the worship of the gods …. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Amy
on June 13, 2018 at 10:02 am

Kevin Brendler,

That’s my point! The guy posting above me was going on and on about how “oppressed” women in American churches are and therefore I responded.

I think women should be subordinate in their roles to church elders and husbands. But we are co-heirs with men in regards to Christ.

That does not mean a women can’t speak at all.

I attend a reformed baptist church that does not allow women any authority over men but we are allowed to voice a prayer concern during our time of bringing concerns or praises before the church, we also sing with the church and practice Titus 2 at our weekly lunch after sevice.

We also practice head covering as women.

I believe Paul was referring to women who were constantly interrupting due to not hearing what was said or trying to stir the pot.

We have to remember that there were no nurseries back then and families had more that 1.2 kids.

So if a women got up to take a crying toddler out, to nurse an infant or to discipline a child then she would miss the teaching. It would be chaos if everytime she came back in she interrupted.

Our church has around 90 people and over 50 are children under 16. So with no nursery and children sitting in service I see this modeled every Sunday.

Also I think it shows respect and is biblical to ask my husband in private because he is my head and is commanded to wash me with the word.

It’s my opinion that Kingdom Theology is more connected to the continuation of Jesus’s teachings as it pertains to His Kingdom now but not totally yet. It’s called Inaugurated Eschatology. A good example is Dr Russell Moore is a Christian Democratic which is a stream of Communitarianism, calling for a Christian demonstration of ethical transformation within the church as the initial manifestation of the kingdom. This is not Marxism or Socialism. One only needs to examine their training to see the influence. If one makes this a Marxist argument you’re lost before you even start. One must point to the error that wrongly understood within Kingdom Theology circles. Let me recommend a book to everyone who might be reading this thread: “The teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church”
by Vos, Geerhardus, 1862-1949. I might also recommend “What Is the Mission of the Church” by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. Gilbert right away writes about how he fell into a wrong teaching of Kingdom Theology. This is the heart of a bad theology and one that has been reawakened through the Emergent Church movement and Acts29

A Word About DBG

Delivered By Grace is a theology blog that focuses on theology, SBC, preaching, the church, and many issues within the Christian life. Delivered By Grace is edited by Josh Buice and contributed to by various other preachers and writers. Unless otherwise noted, articles are written by Josh Buice.

Permissions: You can use the material found here at DBG, but you should properly cite the location by providing the author's name and a link to the page where the information is found.